On Friday, August 16, 2013 6:19:03 PM UTC+2, Trevor Cox wrote:
>
> At least two people have already submitted a patch.
>
Chances that they still work are not really big.
> The issue is not the coding but that the feature request is being rejected.
>
I see 3 core-devs in this thread which seem
At least two people have already submitted a patch. The issue is not the
coding but that the feature request is being rejected. I'm commenting
because I don't think the arguments against the feature have considered all
the use cases for read only admin access; they're just assuming that
As with most open source projects; if you really want to see this done feel
free to get coding and submit a patch :)
Cheers,
Florian
On Friday, August 16, 2013 9:01:07 AM UTC+2, Trevor Cox wrote:
>
> There are lots of reasons why read-only/view permissions are appropriate
> for an admin
There are lots of reasons why read-only/view permissions are appropriate
for an admin system. I'd really like to see this done! I want to be able to
give readonly admin accounts to my designers, developers, sales reps and
sales prospects, because I want them to be able to try out the admin
Hi,
This feature has been discussed in the past on this mailing list (e.g.,
http://goo.gl/ezMpc and more recently: http://goo.gl/j1CPv). There has also
been talks about merging the databrowse contrib app into the admin (see
this ticket: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8936 or the GSoC
+1 from me too. One point is that if you are just browsing the admin,
then viewing the objects in read-only mode is nicer than viewing them
in edit forms. Especially for select/select multiple fields. Although
this might need a bit bigger change into the UI (two links per list
item: "view" and
+1 django has grown since the original design decision and as a rapid
development framework it sells itself it ought to have it --- me thinks.
Daniel
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Chris Wilson
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 04:13, Daniel Greenfeld wrote:
>[...]
>> The original reason -- that the admin isn't intended as a general
>> purpose site, just a backend editing interface -- is still valid. I'm
>> not in favor of trying to turn the admin into something that people
>>
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I really like how the admin interface does a lot of the work for me in
> developing a site with basic CRUD functions, and a few free bonuses
> like pagination and list filtering.
>
> I agree with all the
+1.
This feature is simple and not implies backwards compatibilities or
security problems.
BTW, is very useful.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> mins only,
--
juanpex
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
10 matches
Mail list logo